It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Benefits of Smoking

page: 6
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

Actually, judging by the fact that immediately following the ban, liquor sales at the government store (LCBO) jumped by 325 million (for a population of only 12 million) and the number of hospitality venues that have closed their doors forever.....
I would say that smokers stopped attending non-smoking hospitality venues. Bingo halls closed and the charitable causes that depended on them had to go begging money from the government.

Actually - at this time - you have made my point.

The draconian smoking bans were never required to protect non-smokers OR employees. They were intended for one purpose and one purpose only - to force smokers to quit smoking.

That is called social engineering (prohibition) and it has many many negative effects. The fact that smoking bans are still controversial 10 years after the fact if fair proof of that

Tired of Control Freaks




posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Anyway - can we return to the original post.

The benefits of smoking

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 03:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: blupblup

Try reading the article - there is MAY about it~

Tired of Control Freaks


Certainly Nicotene has benefits. That's one of the main benefits of Vapping as I understand it, that you can vaporized nicotene without being exposed to the heat (I've some question on this - non-smoker...) or other toxic chemicals in commericially prepared cigarettes.

I supposed if you grew your own, dryed your own and rolled your own organic tobacco in a completely 'un-chemical' way you might have something but you would still have to contend with Heat damage and chem-trail residues on your crop and in your soils.

I've a young (25 years-old) friend who is sschophrenic (pardon my spelling) and he smokes like a fiend but it does allow him freedom from more toxic pharmaceuticals. I"m hoping he'll go to vaping, I love this kid and have known him since he was six but he is still imposing his habit on others if they want to be around him. It's choice he's made and one I think is for the better. But it is a very small portion of the population that will benefit from smoking and you must take into account the second hand smoke effects.

This is something that requires more then the narrow view that you have presented. It is a valid 'point', but only a single 'point'.



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 03:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
The owners of private hospitality venues are not happy to have lost their smoking customers.

Tired of Control Freaks


Wait, so smokers aren't going to these places anymore? Man could have fooled me. Last time I went to a bar/restaurant/any place there were smokers standing outside smoking. Your argument here is silly. Not a single smoker stopped going to public places because he wasn't allowed to smoke indoors. There was no lost business due to these ordnances



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

Actually, judging by the fact that immediately following the ban, liquor sales at the government store (LCBO) jumped by 325 million (for a population of only 12 million) and the number of hospitality venues that have closed their doors forever.....
I would say that smokers stopped attending non-smoking hospitality venues. Bingo halls closed and the charitable causes that depended on them had to go begging money from the government.

Bummer



Actually - at this time - you have made my point.

The draconian smoking bans were never required to protect non-smokers OR employees. They were intended for one purpose and one purpose only - to force smokers to quit smoking.

That is called social engineering (prohibition) and it has many many negative effects. The fact that smoking bans are still controversial 10 years after the fact if fair proof of that

Tired of Control Freaks
Well considering smoking has hit an all-time low, and without ever actually making smoking illegal, I'd say they're doing a pretty good job! I'm glad we could come to this positive conclusion together, TiredOfControlFreaks!
edit on 19-2-2015 by AshOnMyTomatoes because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Krazysh0t

And lung cancer and respiratory issues are not guanteed for smokers either. In fact, less than 10 % of all smokers get any kind of respiratory ailment.

And never-smoking is not a guantee that you will not get lung cancer or other respiratory ailments either.

Tired of Control Freaks


Sources please?

And, if I may, why the hostility?



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: GetHyped

Are you now denying the science. Please don't bother attacking me. I am a smoker and I am impervious. If you have something to say about the science, say it. but there is absolutely no reason to put up with personal attacks.

You don't know me and you don't know anything about me!

Tired of Control Freaks


And you don't know anything about those trying to disagree with your point of view. Why does it matter what anyone else thinks or says?

"Methinks the lady doth protest too much"
edit on 19-2-2015 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Cause I would rather choose my master than have my master choose me~


Tired of Control Freaks


Yes, well .... ummm. People, who tend to !!!!FREAK OUT!!!! all over the place are SLAVES to their conditioned and unconscious emotions - and barely rational at the best of times.

I haven't followed your other threads, so I don't know if this is your typical 'Online' style or not.

But as yet, I've not seen one response telling YOU to stop smoking. If you think it helps you and are willing to pay the possible consequences, go for it.

Please do remember that other people have rights as well, and don't impose it on unconsenting others.



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: djz3ro

You should read the exact study. Here it is:

www.nature.com...

Nowhere in the study is it quoted "15 cigarettes cause 1 mutation"

If you are going to quote a sound bite - could you at least source it and find out where it came from


www.bionews.org.uk...

Here's one site of many that carry the story (first Google brought up,), i first heard this last year from my sister who really wants to quit.
From the link...

The underlying science comes from studies carried out in 2009 at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute in Cambridge. Researchers sequenced the DNA of tumour samples taken from lung cancer patients to determine the number of mutations present. These sequences were compared to those in normal tissue samples from these patients. More than 23,000 mutations were found in the cancer genome
 – approximately one for every 15 cigarettes smoked.



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: GetHyped

It minus 30 degree celcius!

A couple of nights ago, they found a handicapped person frozen to death, just outside his front door. The man was 29 years old. He had been out for the evening with friends and took a taxi home. He arrived at the house but didn't make it. His family and friends believed that he stopped for a smoke before entering the house. He never made it. In this kind of cold, you can lose control of your hands in just of few minutes and be unable to open a door and save your own life.

I am so grateful for the efforts of anti-smokers to "save" the lives of smokers!

Tired of Control Freaks


Ahh - we may be getting closer here. You are angry about not being able to smoke whereever you want to, correct?



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: peck420

oh wow - yes, yes I really do. The medical community is involved in anti-smoking in a very big way. They are doing much worse things than showing ugly pictures to smokers.

Here is one example that I know of.

People are often sent to get allergy testing. The technologist divides the area of the back and arms and scratches each patch of skin with a substance that is known to be allergenic.

The technologist always uses the sap from tobacco plants. When the person develops a welt, the person is told that they are highly "allergic" to tobacco smoke.

Please notice that they use the sap of the tobacco plant to do the test, not the smoke.

In fact, it is impossible to be allergic to tobacco smoke of any kind.

health.howstuffworks.com...




Cigarettes can't actually cause an allergic reaction, since they lack any allergenic proteins that would trigger your immune system. However, that's not to say that cigarettes can't cause allergy-like symptoms. In fact, the irritants in cigarettes and cigarette smoke can cause symptoms that appear very similar to those of allergic rhinitis. If you're sensitive, you may end up with a runny nose, watery eyes, coughing, sneezing and trouble breathing, much as you would if you were allergic to dust and breathed it in. People can suffer allergic reactions to tobacco leaves and plants themselves, but these allergies are rare. When you burn tobacco in a cigarette, the chances of such an allergy affecting you are pretty much zero.


When these people see the welt, they believe the technologist and they believe that they have to avoid tobacco smoke.


The facts are the facts here - nobody is transplanting "tar-encrusted" lungs into patients and further nobody can actually breathe if their lungs were encrusted with tar. it would prevent the transportation of oxygen into the lungs and carbon dioxide away from the lungs.

You were scammed, my friend, you were treated like a 5 year old and scared straight by some ugly pictures.
Tired of Control Freaks


Might I suggest at this point - that you smoke more (with those that don't mind) - it may help with the paranoia.

So - all allergy testing is bogus.

All rules protecting the rights of other are bogus.

Anyone who disagrees with you is - well bogus.

And anyone who you don't think is a scientist is bogus as well.

Any scienticfic study or studies that don't agree with your Personal Agenda is bogus.

And you are afraid of dying in the cold jonesing for a smoke because the people who live with you don't want to put up with your personal pollution.


Time for a graphic:




posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse


Actually, the side effects of all the drugs used to replace smoking add up to more problems than smoking did. If they didn't stick all the chemicals in tobacco and planted them more organically a lot of the bad effects would be gone.



Perhaps in the short term. I've heard of those becoming addicted to the patches and other bummers but once beyond the inital detox (physical, mental, and social) not so much.

It was horrible to stop, I loved the patch - best dreams I ever had, the 'herbal' smokes to deal with the mental habit and associations around smoking nearly killed me. But persistance and several pounds finally paid off.

Near 20 years without a smoke, I still hang out with the smokers outside work or events, I like the people, but I can't be in a smoke filled room for much time at all and only very rarely visit the homes of friends who smoke in the house.

One of the best things I (and my husband at the time who still smokes) did was when we bought our home we agreed (for the children in our lives) never to smoke in the house - regardless of the weather.
edit on 19-2-2015 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-2-2015 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes




Again, for who-knows-how-many times, none of your analogies hold up, because SMOKING IS A PASTIME. It is not necessary, it isn't a job, it isn't a byproduct of technology, it is something you do to calm your nerves that is NOT a requirement of life. Therefore, no, smoking doesn't get the same considerations the other things you listed do. You don't have to do it, and the rest of us have every right to ask you not to do it around us.



And a serious ADDICTION. Smoking is a lot more then a simple pasttime. It is not a hobby or a preference, it is an addiction, and big tobacco enhances the addictive properties of nicotine.

I remember when I started smoking, I'd say it was less then a month before I was well and truly addicted.

I'm not even sure it's possible to be a regular smoker however small your daily or weekly consumption.



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 04:46 PM
link   
If there were not so many poisonous additives to maximize profits and keep you addicted. That may hold water better.



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I did - my brother did, his wife did. That is three smokers. I haven't been out for a drink since 2006. Eating out is limited to when I am on the road. I will not spend 1 dime to be entertained in a manner I am not comfortable with.

And given the increase in spending at liquor stores - its fairly obvious that others felt the way I did.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I'd say you guys are a minority. I'm pretty sure the increase in people buying alcohol at liquor stores probably has more to do with the economy and booze being cheaper at liquor stores rather than smokers not wanting to go to the bars anymore.



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: peck420

oh wow - yes, yes I really do. The medical community is involved in anti-smoking in a very big way. They are doing much worse things than showing ugly pictures to smokers.

Here is one example that I know of.

People are often sent to get allergy testing. The technologist divides the area of the back and arms and scratches each patch of skin with a substance that is known to be allergenic.

The technologist always uses the sap from tobacco plants. When the person develops a welt, the person is told that they are highly "allergic" to tobacco smoke.

Please notice that they use the sap of the tobacco plant to do the test, not the smoke.

In fact, it is impossible to be allergic to tobacco smoke of any kind.

health.howstuffworks.com...




Cigarettes can't actually cause an allergic reaction, since they lack any allergenic proteins that would trigger your immune system. However, that's not to say that cigarettes can't cause allergy-like symptoms. In fact, the irritants in cigarettes and cigarette smoke can cause symptoms that appear very similar to those of allergic rhinitis. If you're sensitive, you may end up with a runny nose, watery eyes, coughing, sneezing and trouble breathing, much as you would if you were allergic to dust and breathed it in. People can suffer allergic reactions to tobacco leaves and plants themselves, but these allergies are rare. When you burn tobacco in a cigarette, the chances of such an allergy affecting you are pretty much zero.


When these people see the welt, they believe the technologist and they believe that they have to avoid tobacco smoke.


The facts are the facts here - nobody is transplanting "tar-encrusted" lungs into patients and further nobody can actually breathe if their lungs were encrusted with tar. it would prevent the transportation of oxygen into the lungs and carbon dioxide away from the lungs.

You were scammed, my friend, you were treated like a 5 year old and scared straight by some ugly pictures.
Tired of Control Freaks


Might I suggest at this point - that you smoke more (with those that don't mind) - it may help with the paranoia.

So - all allergy testing is bogus.

All rules protecting the rights of other are bogus.

Anyone who disagrees with you is - well bogus.

And anyone who you don't think is a scientist is bogus as well.

Any scienticfic study or studies that don't agree with your Personal Agenda is bogus.

And you are afraid of dying in the cold jonesing for a smoke because the people who live with you don't want to put up with your personal pollution.


Time for a graphic:



Point by point

1. All allergy testing is bogus....I never said that. I said that testing for allergy to tobacco plant sap DOES NOT indicate that you are allergic to smoke. And I provided references to underscore the point that smoke does not contain any proteins to stimulate the immune response. It is not physically possible.

2. any scientific studies that do not agree with your agenda is bogus....I never said that either.

3. Anyone who disagrees with you is bogus .....well if you are telling me that it is necessary for the protection of public health for smoking to occur ONLY outside - yeah that is bogus! There is no reason for smoking shelters to only have 2 walls and a roof. There is no reason for private property owners not to be able to allow smoking as long as they advertise that fact so that people can choose not to enter if they don't want to.

4. I never said you needed to be scientist...just have little common sense

5. Never said I needed to go outside for a smoke - I don't! I smoke in my home. I am concerned for hospital patients, people in assisted living facilities and essentially anyone who for whatever reason find themselves a prisoner of the state. Yes, I would like them to have a warm, comfortable place to smoke and not have to place their lives at risk to do so (god I am incredibly cruel, aren't I).

6. But the world isn't all about me or about other smokers. Before these draconian bans started, there were reasonable smoking bans. No smoking was allowed in places where people had to go to live their daily lives. Government offices, grocery stores, retail stores, and public transit. There was never any need to enforce these bans because smokers were considerate and obeyed the bans willingly for the sake of our fellow citizens.

It is anti-smokers that decides to get punitive and force smokers into the snow. It is anti-smokers who decided that smokers could only have shelters with two walls and a roof.

It is anti-smokers who are inconsiderate, thoughtless and think the world is all about them!

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I did - my brother did, his wife did. That is three smokers. I haven't been out for a drink since 2006. Eating out is limited to when I am on the road. I will not spend 1 dime to be entertained in a manner I am not comfortable with.
Sounds like the only thing keeping you from going out to bars and restaurants...is you.



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks

It is anti-smokers that decides to get punitive and force smokers into the snow. It is anti-smokers who decided that smokers could only have shelters with two walls and a roof.

It is anti-smokers who are inconsiderate, thoughtless and think the world is all about them!

Tired of Control Freaks


It's very odd that you can't see how forcing other people to inhale smoke that you chose to inhale and not them isn't inconsiderate in your book.



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 05:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The bans came in 2006 - that was BEFORE the economy tanked. The change in liquor store sales was clear in 2007 and has never declined since.

Tired of Control Freaks



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join